Second biggest threat to progress, after fundamentalism?

[TithonusSyndrome]

The Religious Right in America and elsewhere throughout the world is organized, determined, and well-funded. They thrive by exploiting every possible personal malaise that members of the public can feel troubled over and turn it into political momentum. Unless anyone else here can suggest otherwise, I think it'd be safe to say that fundamentalism in countries like Turkey, Poland, the United States, Australia, etc, presents the greatest threat to science and progress that is exclusively social in origin; that is, there may be more potent forces within industry and the market that obstruct the development of technologies or ideas, but that's not the focus here.

Behind fundamentalism, which would take the second-place position as the greatest inhibitor of progress and science? I'll list a few contenders in rough order of potency as I see it:

• Secular blue-collar/redneck population:
  Working-class roughnecks with no religious affiliations who nonetheless despise science as the product of people who "don't work" or "mess up the world". Seldom, if ever, organized into an effective lobbying force, but possibly a larger voter demographic than the devoutly religious and a strong voting base for conservatives or any party that benefits from long-dead myths about their assumed predilection to cut taxes on behalf of the workin' man. In my native Alberta, and possibly Canada overall, this easily takes the number one role ahead of our faint fundamentalist presence.
• Religious moderates:
  With respect to members of this board who qualify as religious moderates, this group tends to be a legitimizing force for fundamentalists. In political climes where fundamentalism is not already in favor, the interest in public dialogue with secular government that religious moderates present often opens a door for fundamentalists that they alone could not open. Possibly a brainbug on my part.
• New Agers/hallucinogenic drug users:
  An admittedly limited portion of the population that perceives science as being stodgy, closed-minded and incomplete without contributions from "spiritual" thinkers, or as the primary force behind the devastation of the environment. An often unaddressed segment of the population whose proselytizers have free reign to misinform people at will with little in the way of informed rebuttal.
• Feminism:
  Likely a long-extinct greivance that, even in it's height, was likely confined to select elements within the feminist movement, saw science as essentially male and chauvinist.

Shit, I thought I had more in mind, but I guess that'll get the ball rolling for now.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Shit! How could I forget one of the bigger ones?

• The PoMoBabble/liberal arts crowd:
  Using intimidating walls of academic-sounding fluff to bludgeon their position with, they assert that science is as defunct as any other "view" or "opinion", and one of the calling cards of a 20th century society gone whacko for any number of baffling "reasons". Pompous dorks with egos bigger than their self-esteem find appeal in this sciolistic field of study and the relative ease they can integrate themselves into it, compared to the gruelling demands of scientific study, to say nothing of the vindication it's anti-scientific views offer them.

[The Grim Squeaker]

My vote goes for the uneducated, idiot (lower-class) masses.
True they only "voted" Stalin into power (Hitler got in on the strength of the white collar middle-class), but these are the same people who are so easily seduced by populistic baloney, religion, ideologies and show the skeptical/critical thinking skills of a Duppy fish.

A person is smart, people are dumb panicky animals.

[Sikon]

Pseudo-luddites and others who excessively, incorrectly apply the "precautionary principle" are a major factor tending to maintain the status quo, politically clogging, slowing technological progress. Such commonly manifests as people looking for problems rather than solutions, a person assuming that if he/she doesn't see a solution, nobody else can either. An example is those who are against nuclear power due to assuming that "we" don't know what to do with nuclear waste or that "we" can't tell whether there are too much radioisotopes released. Indeed, to continue that example, the preceding group helped lead to new nuclear power plants having so many years of delays from regulators, protesters, and more as to make what was once the cheapest source of the electricity generation in the U.S. become no longer an attractive choice for investors.

This observation was particularly striking to me after learning how gasoline, plastics, and more could be synthesized using variants of the Fisher-Tropsch process for a very small portion of GDP with nuclear reactors, as described here. Due to sociopolitical factors, the real world remains in the fossil fuel age and will stay there at least until suffering from peak oil. For example, the last license leading to construction and operation of a nuclear power plant in the U.S. was issued several decades ago, back in 1973.

Outright banning of a technology doesn't tend to happen, but slowing progress in implementation enough to make little happen in anybody's lifetime does occur. The predictions a half-century ago of great benefit from the Atomic Age and from the Space Age were primarily scientifically reasonable but underestimated social factors like the preceding segment of the population, which tend to make mankind as a whole behave like a weak, unmotivated, incompetent individual. If future humanity does become stagnant until eventual decline and extinction, it would likely be because of this group.

[Seggybop]

Greedy corporate types-- Oil companies, RIAA/MPAA, etc. Or more generally, greed.
The general populace is stupid, but the stupid are basically something neutral that get exploited by others. Besides religion, idiots are most easily manipulated by advertising and marketing.

[Lagmonster]

The oft-overlooked barricade against research is the fact that some research just isn't cost effective, and equally that a lot of progress is highly threatening to those industries that have grown wealthy off of the status quo. Just ask the tobacco companies; it doesn't make a lick of sense to stand in the path of science which helps forms guidelines for the improvement of the health of your country, but they do it because there's money to be made.

[Big Orange]

I'd say general social and economic inertia, with lazy and inward looking people from all walks of life.

[Spyder]

• The PoMoBabble/liberal arts crowd:
  Using intimidating walls of academic-sounding fluff to bludgeon their position with, they assert that science is as defunct as any other "view" or "opinion", and one of the calling cards of a 20th century society gone whacko for any number of baffling "reasons". Pompous dorks with egos bigger than their self-esteem find appeal in this sciolistic field of study and the relative ease they can integrate themselves into it, compared to the gruelling demands of scientific study, to say nothing of the vindication it's anti-scientific views offer them.

"We understand that it is your custom to burn widows, normally we'd hang you but according to my philosophy all points of view are equally valid so carry on."
-If Sir Charles Napier was a Post Modernist

It's a tie between this one and groupthink.

Thinking in terms of arbitrary grouping is divisive, encouraging the 'Us vs Them' mentality. PoMo attempts to validate this kind of reasoning while offering nothing in return.

The two are closely related and can be found on all sides of the political spectrum.

[Covenant]

I think it's silly to say that Post-Modernism is the biggest threat to progress behind Fundamentalism. It's claws only dig into the people who are rich enough to get to college but dumb enough to never get out of it. You can't get a job and be a Post-Modernist unless all you do is teach Post-Modern undergrads in some kind of class about Post-Modernism. You can't even being a Fine Arts major that way, so your harm is minimal.

These people are frustrating but they have no traction in society.

The poverty and lack of education that plague the lower ends of society are much more responsible for so many of the things that drag people back though. Even without fundamentalism, they're more likely to believe completely insane bullshit that appeals to their way of thinking and they physically lack the tools needed to do critical thinking in regards to borderline insane bullshit that shouldn't appeal to anyone.

These people could be moderates, have decent jobs, and go to an okay school. Nothing great. But because they weren't in a high-powered educational system or because their parents needed them to go to a private, possibly religious school in order to get a better education, they're much more likely to hold utterly backwards ideas. Plus, they have the most voting power as a group, which makes them much more damaging at a national level. Even the liberal members of the uneducated are dangerously poorly informed and may support a variety of the 'progressive-but-wrong' policies that mean well but have bad science.

These are also the people most likely to be scared of progress as a whole, and then buy into that. It's not like we can remove the freedom of speech just because people say things that are wrong. But if we knew that the public was educated and capable of making intelligent choices on their own (and actively wanted to do what was correct, not just what seemed like 'common sense' or 'values' or such bullshit) then we wouldn't need to worry. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is only dangerous because people are going to run for the door like sheep rather than humans. If people were smart, we wouldn't need to be as afraid of liars.

[Prozac the Robert]

Some of the worst green types, or the most militant animal rights activists are worth considering for a nomination.

[Spyder]

I think it's silly to say that Post-Modernism is the biggest threat to progress behind Fundamentalism. It's claws only dig into the people who are rich enough to get to college but dumb enough to never get out of it. You can't get a job and be a Post-Modernist unless all you do is teach Post-Modern undergrads in some kind of class about Post-Modernism. You can't even being a Fine Arts major that way, so your harm is minimal.

Being involved in PoMo academia is only a very small part of the problem. PoMo thought is rampant, even among those that have no idea what it is. It is the ultimate golden mean fallacy. Representing the US Right Wing as "simply the other side of the argument and therefore worthy of consideration" is an example of PoMo thought. Teaching creationism alongside evolution is an example of PoMo. Tolerating harmful religious practices due to cultural considerations is PoMo, this includes Sharia law, JW refusing blood transfusions, allowing Papua New Guinea to spread dysentery while they keep eating babies (I wish I was kidding).

The academic side of PoMo just looks at all these hideous examples and calls it a valid train of thought.

[darthbob88]

[...]allowing Papua New Guinea to spread dysentery while they keep eating babies (I wish I was kidding).

Evidence, source, something? I have trouble believing that, and I'd like to see something more.

[Covenant]

I think it's silly to say that Post-Modernism is the biggest threat to progress behind Fundamentalism. It's claws only dig into the people who are rich enough to get to college but dumb enough to never get out of it. You can't get a job and be a Post-Modernist unless all you do is teach Post-Modern undergrads in some kind of class about Post-Modernism. You can't even being a Fine Arts major that way, so your harm is minimal.

Being involved in PoMo academia is only a very small part of the problem. PoMo thought is rampant, even among those that have no idea what it is. It is the ultimate golden mean fallacy. Representing the US Right Wing as "simply the other side of the argument and therefore worthy of consideration" is an example of PoMo thought. Teaching creationism alongside evolution is an example of PoMo. Tolerating harmful religious practices due to cultural considerations is PoMo, this includes Sharia law, JW refusing blood transfusions, allowing Papua New Guinea to spread dysentery while they keep eating babies (I wish I was kidding).

The academic side of PoMo just looks at all these hideous examples and calls it a valid train of thought.

Ahh, okay. That's a pretty valid thought process then. I wasn't aware that the 'golden mean' type of thinking was an artifact of PostModernism! That's bad.

[Spyder]

[...]allowing Papua New Guinea to spread dysentery while they keep eating babies (I wish I was kidding).

Evidence, source, something? I have trouble believing that, and I'd like to see something more.

Random documentary on TV. Unfortuantely I don't recall the spefics, just one example where an infant with dysentery had died and an old man saying "we knew we shouldn't have eaten the body but the young flesh was very succulent so they went ahead anyway (or words to that effect.)

I did find this though.

Google throws up a few sites, some claiming that cannibalism went out in the 1950s.

[darthbob88]

[...]allowing Papua New Guinea to spread dysentery while they keep eating babies (I wish I was kidding).

Evidence, source, something? I have trouble believing that, and I'd like to see something more.

Random documentary on TV. Unfortuantely I don't recall the spefics, just one example where an infant with dysentery had died and an old man saying "we knew we shouldn't have eaten the body but the young flesh was very succulent so they went ahead anyway (or words to that effect.)

I did find this though.

Google throws up a few sites, some claiming that cannibalism went out in the 1950s.

Ah. I always thought of cannibalism as tribal mudslinging; We never eat people, but They over the mountain do. Thank you for the evidence.

[Patrick Degan]

I'd say the second biggest threat to progress is the sort of passive neo-luddism which has become common coin in pop-culture today —which fears anything with the world "nuclear" in it or advocates essentially shutting down our technology or freezing its development forever as the means to save the planet from global warming, and in which any half-formed opinion is given as much weight as those of actual scientists and engineers supposedly because it shows more "concern" for the Earth. It has made discussion of several key issues difficult if not impossible to approach.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Regarding PoMo, they may have a bit of a catalytic effect. Because they are so showy, they tend to impress the public at large more than actual scientists currently do, and they sound so reasonable sometimes that people want to buy into anything whose essence sounds so reasonable and easy to understand but whose substance is so complex (never mind whether it's valid or contradictory) that it must be on a firm foundation.

But it also gives Fundamentalists a handy strawman at which to aim the ire of more concerned folk. A number of Christian books that I have read tend to lump all "intellectuals" together as operating under a confused relativistic understanding of "truth", whereas only good old fashioned Christians have any concern for or knowledge of Truth. Thus all the scientists and real philosophers, who are in reality even further from the PostMods than any current religion, are painted with the same brush and dismissed. Anything that helps spread anti-intellectualism is bad; the post modernists just help direct those religious moderate blue-collar masses into two different groups: fundamentalist anti- intellectual or apathetic uncritical golden mean voting lump.

[Junghalli]

What Degan and Sikon said. The luddite anti-progress "liberals" who constantly seek to bottle up promising new technologies by appealing to ignorant popular fears. Their core aims are pretty close to those of fundies - most of them are reactionaries who fear and hate progress and want us to go back to some idealized utopian eden-state that only exists in their imaginations. If it was up to these people we'd never have gotten out of the caves.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Pop Culture Culture Or media oriented entertainment media. Those who rate Anna Nicole as more relevant than Richard Dawkins, and whose power over our society is evidenced in this thread:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=102622

Post Modernists have persuaded themselves and the unwary into accepting all views uncritically. These people are too concerned with emulating Paris Hilton to care. Maybe living in California makes these sorts seem more prevalent and influential than they would to most observers, but it's not encouraging. They may be unable to do a lot of active damage politically by virtue of apathy, but in the meantime they use a lot of resources, run up debt, and otherwise weaken the country, while allowing the more dastardly and cunning to run that much more free and marginalizing the dissemination of science by making it relatively unprofitable to the popular media.

[Uraniun235]

Pop Culture Culture Or media oriented entertainment media.

I would suggest that if you're going to argue that a segment of pop culture is the second biggest impediment to progress, that you might as well go whole hog and say that pop culture itself is an impediment to progress. Arguably, it's the very thing which keeps people from getting really pissed off at the shit that goes on around them, and from getting the impetus to actually go out and try and make a change.

(Note that I'm not trying to paint it as some dastardly plot by Big Media to try and quell us into submission; this has been something that pop culture has done ever since pop culture came into being, because it

[Uraniun235]

(please disregard the last post as I apparently accidentally hit the submit button mid-composition somehow)

Pop Culture Culture Or media oriented entertainment media.

I would suggest that if you're going to argue that a segment of pop culture is the second biggest impediment to progress, that you might as well go whole hog and say that pop culture itself is an impediment to progress. Arguably, it's the very thing which keeps people from getting really pissed off at the shit that goes on around them, and from getting the impetus to actually go out and try and make a change.

(Note that I'm not trying to paint it as some dastardly plot by Big Media to try and quell us into submission; this has been something that pop culture has done ever since pop culture came into being, because it sells well.)

What one does about it, however, I have little idea.

[Wicked Pilot]

I will echo Big Orange's slackasses. In fact, I may even put them ahead of the fundies. They may not be actively pushing the wrong way, but they're letting it happen. I wouldn't mind seeing a return to some of the early Cold War attitudes of 'damnit, let's be the best and the smartest, let's get out front and lead.'

[Zornhau]

I think it's silly to say that Post-Modernism is the biggest threat to progress behind Fundamentalism. It's claws only dig into the people who are rich enough to get to college but dumb enough to never get out of it. You can't get a job and be a Post-Modernist unless all you do is teach Post-Modern undergrads in some kind of class about Post-Modernism. You can't even being a Fine Arts major that way, so your harm is minimal.

Ah, but aside from general pollution of intellectual culture as described upthread, PoMo also diverts the bright and the clever from doing anything useful with their brains. A bit like Christianity in the Late Roman Empire.

[darthbob88]

May I suggest the thar mentality? It's a mindset characterized by supreme masculine pride and dominance, excessive sensitivity to insult, and the priority of family rights over personal rights. Perhaps the ugliest example is this:

For sheer, bottom-of-the-barrel depravity, it's hard to top this. A recent newspaper account of the plight of AIDS orphans in Africa described how they would often be left utterly destitute because their parents' relatives would swoop in and take all their property. No doubt these are the same relatives who would expect the orphans to support them if they became successful.

From the article.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

May I suggest the thar mentality? It's a mindset characterized by supreme masculine pride and dominance, excessive sensitivity to insult, and the priority of family rights over personal rights. Perhaps the ugliest example is this:

For sheer, bottom-of-the-barrel depravity, it's hard to top this. A recent newspaper account of the plight of AIDS orphans in Africa described how they would often be left utterly destitute because their parents' relatives would swoop in and take all their property. No doubt these are the same relatives who would expect the orphans to support them if they became successful.

From the article.

It sounds like fundamentalism and induced societal sexual frustration are part and parcel of this Thar neurosis.